Foreman versus Crawford Grimsley

Calling Foreman a fake is taking things a bit too far. He did a lot of good work for the church and for the youth in his community for the better part of 10 years before making his comeback. Did he get a bit greedy along the way of his success? Possibly. But for the most part, I think Foreman is a genuinely good human being who certainly has done more for the world that he lives in than many of his boxing peers. Furthermore, as for your comment about him " giving up like that", do you not appreciate what it took for a guy to return to boxing after 10 years off and winning a world title at age 45??? He could have retired right then and there without even fighting Schultz, Savarese, Grimsley or Briggs, and no one but no one would have held it against him. I know you probably would have liked to see him go on a mission challenging Bowe, Lewis, Holyfield and Tyson fighting each one 3 months apart from one another, but in the real world of boxing we rarely get to see sights that are so pleasing to the eye.

 

Do you not understand that Foreman was basically "given" more than one title shot during his comeback? Yeah, I know it took a lot of work for Foreman to return to boxing after a ten year hiatus and work himself into shape. I don't discount that. But you have to admit that George's "cause" was helped immensely by the fact that his popularity opened doors that should have only been opened by fistic merit! No way around that!

And I know George has done a lot for the community and has donated a lot of time and money over the years. I never said he didn't. But that doesn't change the fact that George was a businessman at heart, and his comeback sure started to smell a little seedy and greedy a long the way. And as far as George "giving up the title"! What else do you call what he did? George lost to Tommy Morrison and was rewarded for his "effort" by being "given" a title shot against Moorer. He wins unexpectedly and then is given a bum to fight in his first defense. When that bum turned out to be tougher than expected, Foreman is ordered to fight his "hand picked" opponent again in a rematch. And Foreman refuses! Let's talk about honor here for a moment. George is allowed to fight an unranked bum - a bum that all of a sudden got ranked via a $250,000 bribe paid to Bob Lee - and then George gets busted up in the fight. George lost and Schultz deserved to win the title. You would think George would at the very least give the guy another shot.....George asked for Schultz the first time. And do you not think Schultz deserved to have his hand raised at the end of the fight? Tell me where Foreman's honor and integrity starts and stops.....The line seems a little murky to me....

 

This is pretty much how I see it as well.

Like you said, he basically started his whole career all over again rather than riding off his legacy of the past to get a few quick fix paydays. Of course Holmes would later do the same thing, but only after seeing Foreman's example. I doubt he would have launched a comeback in the exact same fashion had George not paved the way.

people here act like George Foreman was some sort of half ass TV evangelist who scammed the public. His battles with Holyfield, Moorer and Stewart were genuine fights, as were all of his others. Additionally, folks frown about how he selected Axel Schultz, Lou Savarese and Crawford Grimsley as opponents. What they have already forgotten in such a short time, is that at age 45+ Foreman was not supposed to be holding a world title and fighting 20 something year odl men with undefeated records. He was supposed to in theory be retired. Who gives a **** if the guy didn't line up fights with the most deserving fighters at 46 years of age? The fact that he fought Grimsley, Savarese, and Briggs were bonus viewings of the great George in my opinion.

 

I don't think that it was only Foreman calling all the shots in terms of who he was scheduled to fight and who he wasn't. As for Moorer giving him an unwarranted shot at his title, that had just as much to do with Moorer's greed as it did anything else. Michael probably saw big $$ signs by signing to fight Foreman, and figured that it'd be an easy win. Hindsite tells us that it wasn't the case.

I find it unfortunate that people seem to overshadow the giant magnitude of Foreman's regaining the title with the fact that he fought a few underqualified fighters afterwards. It takes his accomplishment out of context and causes certain people to focus on the less important.

If this is of any consolation, I don't think you have to worry, because we'll probably never see another George Foreman again in our lifetime.

 

But boxing doesn't handicap for age. If a guy wins the heavyweight title, it's his obligation to be champion and defend the title. The rules don't change just because the guy wearing the belt is 45! If George didn't want to be champion, he should have just retired right after knocking Moorer out. It wasn't fair to the other legitimate fighters out there that the title was being placed on ice because George wanted to fight Tyson in a mega-million dollar fight. Larry Merchant summed George up quite nicely after the fight with Schultz when he said something to the effect that "George wants to be champion but he's not up to being champion"!

I could care less about his fights with Briggs, Savarese or Grimsley. George wasn't champion then, so those fights don't mean a thing. He could have fought Pee-Wee Herman if he liked. But when George had the belt, he disgraced the belt and he disgraced the sport by his shameful actions. That's all! I'm sure George is a great guy, but his actions during his championship reign speak loud and clear.

 

I'm only grilling Foreman for his championship reign; the fights against Savarese, Briggs, and Grimsley were fought when George didn't have the title.

 

I suppose you're right.

It would have done the boxing world a better justice if George had just retired after beating Michael Moorer.

 

I,d agree Foreman was not the monster he had been, but Gerry Cooney thought he hit hard!

 

Foreman's win over Lou Savarese is underrated in my opinion. Savarese was a 6'5" 230 LB guy who was a 36-0 professional. He was coming off of a knockout win over Buster Mathis Jr. and holding the USBA title. If you ask me, there were worse guys he could have fought at 47 years old, or whatever he was at the time.

 

Savarese is a bit underrated in general.

Have to figure he was one of the 90's juicers as well. His latter day case of gyno kind of proves that in my eyes.

 

Hindsite tells us that he wasn't a particularly great fighter, as shown in some of the performances following the Foreman fight. At the time however, he was a big heavyweight undbeaten in 36 fights and holding a minor belt. I can think of lineal champions who have given title shots to worse fighters, and Foreman at 47, wasn't even the actual champ at the time.

 

Yeah, he wasn't amazing...

He was better than some of the people Foreman gets faulted for fighting early on, like Mike Jameson, who used to be Tyson's human punching bag in sparring.

 

I'd say he was also as good or better than a lot of the fighters that Larry Holmes and Joe Louis gave title shots to. I don't think that a 36-0 guy would quite make any bum of the month clubs.